Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Heres the thing I don't care if someone likes the movie or not I just don't want to hear about how much they hate it non stop for another 4 f@#king years just because they think their the second coming of Roger Ebert or something (which they aren't).

Must be horrible for you having to hear about people liking different things . For four years, no less.

Again I don't give two craps about what they like or don't like because their honestly not that important in the grand scheme of things.

I just want them to get that going on about it for 4 years is pathetic and frankly annoying as hell.

But spare a thought for the people who don't want to hear people going on about how good it is for another four years. What if they find that pathetic and annoying?

It's a discussion board. Sometimes you'll agree with people, sometimes you'll disagree. You'll almost certainly come across people you can't stand. It's just the way it is. ...Some things will never chaaange. ♪ ♫

Must be horrible for you having to hear about people liking different things . For four years, no less.

Again I don't give two craps about what they like or don't like because their honestly not that important in the grand scheme of things.

I just want them to get that going on about it for 4 years is pathetic and frankly annoying as hell.

But spare a thought for the people who don't want to hear people going on about how good it is for another four years. What if they find that pathetic and annoying?

It's a discussion board. Sometimes you'll agree with people, sometimes you'll disagree. You'll almost certainly come across people you can't stand. It's just the way it is. ...Some things will never chaaange. ♪ ♫

the ones that like it aren't bringing the film up in threads that have nothing to do with it or repeating the same debunked thing over and over again.

And its not really a discussion when one side keeps thinking their dislike of the films makes them a "real fan" and how anyone who doesn't agree is one of the "drooling masses"

Plus at least the ones who like the films have seen the shows they're are based on. I have no idea what the guys who are complaining have watched but it sure as hell wasn't TOS.

the ones that like it aren't bringing the film up in threads that have nothing to do with it or repeating the same debunked thing over and over again.

Actually there are a lot of cases where people who like it are going out of their way to bring it up over and over again and the ones who didn't like it are the ones responding. This is not a one-way street.

And its not really a discussion when one side keeps thinking their dislike of the films makes them a "real fan" and how anyone who doesn't agree is one of the "drooling masses"

This is a stereotype that represents an incredibly tiny portion of the people who had concerns over the film. There's no such thing as a "real" or "mass" fan, we're all fans or we wouldn't be here posting like proud Trek nerds. Concerns and criticism =/= mindless hate statements. There will always be extremists in any faction but judging the whole on a select few is wrong.

Plus at least the ones who like the films have seen the shows they're are based on. I have no idea what the guys who are complaining have watched but it sure as hell wasn't TOS.

Another generalized statement that bears little significance or meaning other than as a broad stereotypical statement. As Spock would say, its clear your emotions are clouding your judgement just as their emotions are clouding theirs.

Sorry, reality is a bit more complex than that. Some movies display a lack of originality and attempt to sell the audience rehash of better movies they've already seen; others don't.

I have two criteria for movies: Did it entertain me? Do I want to revisit it again? In my opinion, if you're looking at a movie for anything more than that, you're doing it wrong.

Star Trek Into Darkness entertained me and I want to see it again even though I've seen it four times in the theater. So I consider it a successful movie. If it didn't entertain you then you can say you didn't think it was successful.

I think constructive criticism of a movie can be great (there are a great many flaws in Into Darkness), but much of what I see in this forum isn't constructive. It's butt-hurt from people who aren't getting the Star Trek that they somehow feel that they deserve. Those people who are butt-hurt are simply trying to denigrate something that others enjoy because they haven't gotten their way.

Went to see The World's End last night with the wife who is a huge fan of Simon Pegg and the movies that he makes. I found myself staring at the ceiling, staring at the floor and pretty much twiddling my thumbs all the way through at the poor acting and bad dialogue (but then I'm not a great judge because I'm not really into British humor) but I'm not going to tear the movie down because it isn't something I wanted to see. Beyond making sure she enjoyed herself and maybe voting in a poll about it, I'll probably not think about it again until the inevitable Blu-ray that I'll have to view.

Same thing with Voyager. What exactly would I be proving by going in that forum and pissing on something that other folks enjoy?

I think constructive criticism of a movie can be great (there are a great many flaws in Into Darkness), but much of what I see in this forum isn't constructive. It's butt-hurt from people who aren't getting the Star Trek that they somehow feel that they deserve.

STID had a few entertaining elements and I did give it a more than fair grade of a "C-" in this poll. Too much of it was lackluster and undeveloped though for me to heap the excessive praise that lots on here give it. The script had the basic elements of a good movie, but it lacked any kind of structure or coherence. People rag on it for ripping off Wrath of Khan, but I thought it relied way too much on recycling the previous movie.

If Benedict Cumberbatch wasn't so great in this film, I'd possibly have given it a D. It's a series of promising set-pieces with very little holding them together.

I really wish they hadn't spoiled that "John Harrison" was an alias prior to release.

That was bad marketing.

I preferred it when he was John Harrison. They could have kept the augment angle: Make him a new generation cooked up by Marcus based on Khan and his people DNA; had him be a follower of Khan--if we had to have Khan in the movie--with Khan being one of the people in the torpedo. Or just cut Khan out beyond: Section 31 restarted the augment program, the research that made Khan was the master template that they "improved on"; Harrison is pissed at being used and is out to kick everyone's ass--maybe driven batty by the whole "superior genes breeds superior ambition" side of the process.

I really wish they hadn't spoiled that "John Harrison" was an alias prior to release.

That was bad marketing.

I preferred it when he was John Harrison. They could have kept the augment angle: Make him a new generation cooked up by Marcus based on Khan and his people DNA; had him be a follower of Khan--if we had to have Khan in the movie--with Khan being one of the people in the torpedo. Or just cut Khan out beyond: Section 31 restarted the augment program, the research that made Khan was the master template that they "improved on"; Harrison is pissed at being used and is out to kick everyone's ass--maybe driven batty by the whole "superior genes breeds superior ambition" side of the process.

I would've enjoyed seeing this sort of storyline a whole lot more. The whole point of Nu-Trek was to reboot in a different timeline thus opening up the possibility of being similar to the already-made incarnations without having to recycle the storylines.

What better way to show you're really in a DIFFERENT universe than to take the most iconic and pivotal villain in the Prime universe and show he's not so central to this universe? If anything a universe without the Khan saga would truly send the message "THIS IS DIFFERENT... but we can still toss in homages you'll understand "

If I had done it: Harrison is pretty much the same, an augment--but a new generation of augments, the first of several. He escapes, his brothers and sisters are frozen and stuffed in the drone-torps, and he begins to think of himself as the heir to Khan's legacy. His DNA was modeled on Khans and improved beyond Khan's, of course he's superior to Khan, Harrison the turn King where Khan was a mere Prince. How dare Marcus and Starfleet imprison his people; how dare they hold back their rightful leaders. If I had to show Khan, after credits: A shot of a battered and beaten Botany Bay, and inside we see Khan still in cryo sleep. Just leave it there. He's out there, maybe we'll find him, maybe we won't.

I have no idea what the guys who are complaining have watched but it sure as hell wasn't TOS.

That's some serious horseshit, man.

While an awful lot of my criticisms of the Abrams movies (both of which I found to be terrible on most levels) are because of their failings as movies, there are at least as many criticisms I'd level because the reboot films fail in their relation to TOS.

Even my wife, who is by no means anything like a lifelong devotee but likes TOS and has seen them all one to three times by now, spoke up during ID to say to me, 'This ISN'T Star Trek.' She didn't even say that during the 09, which I find a slightly worse movie personally. Cumberbatch was the reason she wanted to go and the reason I took her, but that was a waste of talent given they were trying to cram the Khan aspect in though it was hardly needed, if at all.

Nope. It had to be Khan. This mistake was trying to hide it, especially when we all knew it was Khan a year ago.

Nah, you could pull it off. Have Harrison been a clone of the original, or a Marcus bred augment brainwashed/deluded into thinking he's Khan. It's merely a question of how twisty you want to make the journey.